RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization

RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 6:19:09 PM)
The documentary I posted shows how the way that Fox News operates has not permeated the broadcast news industry. And I agree that there is always bias in the media, which is why media consolidation is a terrible thing for our democracy... the media in less and less hands should scare us all.

Sternhand4 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 8:48:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella Well, I can certainly not speak for the Democratic Party, but were it me, I would be thinking along these lines.... At some point, you stop playing with the kids who keep being dirty, underhanded cheaters, even if it means you don't get to play kickball that day. Just out of curiosity, who on CNN are you talking about? Jack Cafferty (sp?) is probably the most empassioned against the administration, but he always is factual.... and Glenn the bigot Beck is on CNN... Does this mean youd support not seeing republican candidates on CBS? CNN? When you want info you'll have to tune to the appropriate channel. For the left mainstream media, for the right Fox. No hard questions just softballs from reliable bobing heads. Good plan

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 9:55:35 PM)
quote: Secondly, what you seem to be stating is that the American people expect that the Democrats somehow defy the constitution and make laws contrary to the rules inherent within it when it comes to overriding presidential vetoes... you also seem to be inferring that most Americans are too stupid to understand how our government works when it comes to overriding veto power. I am certain that you are correct, some Americans without a doubt will buy into "its all the congress, it is all their fault".... These types tend not to understand how things work or they are so blinded by partisan hatred they are more than willing to assign blame where very little exists. Its obvious that I said exactly the opposite concerning a presidential veto."I agree that there lacks enough support to overcome a veto. All the more reason to move forward with the initiative. Surrendering to a lame duck unpopular President versus standing up to a position to the end of your ability to effect change. Which are you more likely to support and endorse? Is there anything written there suggesting otherwise? I suggest that the Democrats in office are convinced their constituency is too stupid to remember their commitment and promise. Perhaps they are correct. quote: To be honest I am wondering what you Democrats to do? I'll assume that 'want' should be added to the above. Obviously I expect more than you. I expect them to act even if the outcome of the action is blocked. Yet once again the back down. quote: WASHINGTON (AP) - Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war. Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran. Source: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070313/D8NR1IA80.html Is this the change we thought we were voting for? quote: The president you support, whom I refer to as Simian In chief, is not one of those people who can assimilate and hear opposing views without fear of feeling threatened. I support and respect what he represents and those who must act upon his orders. My disagreement and belief he is wrong doesn't get in the way of that, and there are better arguments to make in lieu of name calling.

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 10:02:06 PM)
I expect nothing from politicians, I will say this, it is a demonstration of how bad the republicans have left things that the democrats probably do not have to do much to get reelected. I am not a democrat, and I would like to see every democrat that voted for the Iraq Resolution gone. Sometimes when a person makes a huge mistake they need to be fired for it, and this quagmire was a huge mistake. I do not care what one calls oneself, I would love to see people like Hillary Clinton and Joesph Lieberman GONE quote: and there are better arguments to make in lieu of name calling. I get offended when Sinegy insults beautiful Simians by name calling them comparing them to Bush. I would call Bush a murderous lying scum sucking pervert sociopathic baby killing literal son of a bitch (I do not think much of his mother either). I do not hate Bush, but I know evil scum when I see evil scum. Bush has no conscience, he has no heart, he could care less about any of us, our troops are nothing but meat for his grinder, and he feeds them to it so enrich his constituency. I used to feel so strongly about Bush after the war in Iraq I could not talk to certain family members and I ended a couple of friendships with republicans. Every time I talked to them I thought of how they supported this evil evil person. I thought about how their support was responsible for the death of untold numbers of people. People that voted for him sickened me. I have since realized that people who supported him just do not know better, they are ignorant, and basically I needed to pity them, because one day many of them will know the depths of the evil they once supported. My sister woke up already, she and I did not speak for over a year when we invaded Iraq. If you want to make a big deal about calling this terrible greedy beady eyed fucker a monkey, well I have to wonder where your priorities at being outraged really are. My outrages are of a completely different variety, and political name calling between fellow Americans that are not reporting the news really does not rate in my mind

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 10:18:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I expect nothing from politicians, I will say this, it is a demonstration of how bad the republicans have left things that the democrats probably do not have to do much to get reelected. I am not a democrat, and I would like to see every democrat that voted for the Iraq Resolution gone. Sometimes when a person makes a huge mistake they need to be fired for it, and this quagmire was a huge mistake. I do not care what one calls oneself, I would love to see people like Hillary Clinton and Joesph Lieberman GONE quote: and there are better arguments to make in lieu of name calling. I get offended when Sinegy insults beautiful Simians by name calling them comparing them to Bush. I would call Bush a murderous lying scum sucking pervert sociopathic baby killing literal son of a bitch (I do not think much of his mother either). I do not hate Bush, but I know evil scum when I see evil scum. Bush has no conscience, he has no heart, he could care less about any of us, our troops are nothing but meat for his grinder, and he feeds them to it so enrich his constituency. I used to feel so strongly about Bush after the war in Iraq I could not talk to certain family members and I ended a couple of friendships with republicans. Every time I talked to them I thought of how they supported this evil evil person. I thought about how their support was responsible for the death of untold numbers of people. People that voted for him sickened me. I have since realized that people who supported him just do not know better, they are ignorant, and basically I needed to pity them, because one day many of them will know the depths of the evil they once supported. My sister woke up already, she and I did not speak for over a year when we invaded Iraq. If you want to make a big deal about calling this terrible greedy beady eyed fucker a monkey, well I have to wonder where your priorities at being outraged really are. My outrages are of a completely different variety, and political name calling between fellow Americans that are not reporting the news really does not rate in my mind Dont hold back, julia, please let us know what you honestly feel. Sinergy p.s. I agree with every word of this post...

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 6:08:36 AM)
quote: If you want to make a big deal about calling this terrible greedy beady eyed fucker a monkey, well I have to wonder where your priorities at being outraged really are. My outrages are of a completely different variety, and political name calling between fellow Americans that are not reporting the news really does not rate in my mind I appreciate you coming to the defense of your man. Good for you. If I say it enough you may someday understand. I don't know why it is a difficult concept. As much as lowering yourself by name calling President Bush speaks to your and/or Sinergy's frustration and mine for that matter, I consider the office much more valuable than him. My lack of support of what is occurring in Iraq already speaks to not supporting the troops there on President Bush's orders. I won't add to that lack of support by disrespecting them by name calling their commander and chief. Your personal feelings or frustration fails to consider this. Obviously feeling that same way isn't required. Needing to use common language or using name calling is something I abandoned years ago - again not something you or anyone else need to subscribe. However, I continue to make the point as long as you feel the need to make yours. My priorities are exactly where they should be, on issues versus labels. Apparently in lieu of an argument you prefer name calling or accepting the practice. The fact that it distinguishes us is fine. I'd argue that name calling speaks to priorities and misguided ones at that. You're happy or at least not upset that a change in the leadership of Congress has not changed anything? Throwing up your hands and saying "What can they do?" Well again another difference between us. I'll keep voting against any incumbent unless and until they "get it" in answer to "what can they do?". Showing me that their action had a purpose blocked by either the size of their majority or party of the man at the top will result in me moving in the next election to give them that majority or top spot regardless of how I may disagree with any/all of their other positions. But go ahead, if name calling and defending name calling is your issue you should run with it.

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 7:06:43 AM)
I am not a nationalist, and more lying crooks have inhabited the Oval Office compared to men with honor. I do not care about the presidency. I do not hold that office in any higher esteem than any other job. Just me. I am not a supporter of a commander in chief, I do not give a rat's ass about generals, I do care about our troops because they have no voice and no choice once they sign up.. You seem to think that others should respect the same institutions that you do... I don't. I respect individual Americans, but not our leaders because for the most part they would whore out their mothers for a vote. I would fight for my country if it were invaded, but I do not think sending our troops all over the world to secure oil is fighting for me. I think the people that send our troops all over the world are sociopaths, evil, beady eyed murdering fucktards and I do not care what you think about my opinion.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 7:26:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I am not a nationalist, and more lying crooks have inhabited the Oval Office compared to men with honor. I do not care about the presidency. I do not hold that office in any higher esteem than any other job. Just me. I am not a supporter of a commander in chief, I do not give a rat's ass about generals, I do care about our troops because they have no voice and no choice once they sign up.. You seem to think that others should respect the same institutions that you do... I don't. I respect individual Americans, but not our leaders because for the most part they would whore out their mothers for a vote. I would fight for my country if it were invaded, but I do not think sending our troops all over the world to secure oil is fighting for me. I think the people that send our troops all over the world are sociopaths, evil, beady eyed murdering fucktards and I do not care what you think about my opinion. You take the fact that the troops have to follow orders as having no choice. That is correct. That is the whole concept behind the military. I don't see the volunteers as ignorant as you providing that they didn't understand that concept upon joining. The possibility that they would be required to go to war, kill or be killed, philosophically agreeing or disagreeing with the cause they are required to enforce is very clear. The illiterate, no longer qualify for military service. Nope - I care as much about your opinion as you do of mine. Nope - I don't need anyone else to respect or apply the same perspective to intuitions or people; that you so eloquently trash, as I do. I'll respect and the positions because lacking respect for them I surrender to the concept that no change will occur. I don't distinguish that respect on agreement, or disagreement. I guess you can say that I care as much as you don't. You are also correct that I feel anyone coming through the meat grinder that is the current state of politics in the US is worthy of more consideration or "esteem" than someone who sits on the sidelines content at name calling. The results may suck, they may have more ego than brains, they may have an agenda fueled by back-room politics, but they've managed to achieve a majority vote. BTW - I respect those voters that put them there too. I'll speak of issues. There are enough points to make regarding their actions that point to hypocrisy and fraud. I doubt I'll need to resort to banal to describe them. But it's your prerogative, if it makes you feel good, to keep doing so. Enjoy!

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 7:29:02 AM)
quote: You take the fact that the troops have to follow orders as having no choice. That is correct. That is the whole concept behind the military. I don't see the volunteers as ignorant as you providing that they didn't understand that concept upon joining. The possibility that they would be required to go to war, kill or be killed, philosophically agreeing or disagreeing with the cause they are required to enforce is very clear. The illiterate, no longer qualify for military service. You are putting words into my mouth, and that means I am done here... thanks for playing.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 7:33:12 AM)
quote: You are putting words into my mouth, and that means I am done here... thanks for playing. I'm sure you think so, but as your other assessments it doesn't make it true. The quote speaks exactly to your point. What other point is their concerning a volunteer army and the people who command them? I'm sure you thought it through. I quoted your words.

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 7:39:02 AM)
I never called our troops ignorant and I am not playing this straw man debate game with people, it is not something I would put up with in the real world and I am not doing it on a message board I was addressing not being a nationalist and having respect for common people, not decision makers... if you cannot see the difference in having respect for common people and not those making the decisions... fine. I really do not care.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 9:20:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I never called our troops ignorant and I am not playing this straw man debate game with people, it is not something I would put up with in the real world and I am not doing it on a message board I was addressing not being a nationalist and having respect for common people, not decision makers... if you cannot see the difference in having respect for common people and not those making the decisions... fine. I really do not care. No you didn't call the troops ignorant, you called and/or support their commanders and the top commander specifically a simian. Did you ever see the Monster.com commercial about how stupid it is to work for monkeys? Is if your belief that there is no implication of stupidity if you volunteer for such a position? You view that this is a straw man argument in contrary to the pragmatic analysis of your words. Now see, I may be just misunderstanding you. For instance the "I am done here" obviously doesn't mean the same to you as it does to me. Respect for "common people" until or unless they obtain a position of power? Wouldn't that doom you to never respecting anyone who obtains an elected position of authority? What is not being a "nationalist" have to do with it? Where are the "common people" governing themselves? Is there an example in the past, present, or envisioned that would meet your criteria to earn "respect"? Which got me to thinking about how aligned your "common man" approach points to an issue where you are in complete agreement with the President and many within his party and administration. President Bush's position on giving amnesty to the criminals who are illegally in the US, with more coming over the border every day, is in alignment, if not in total agreement, to yours. Is that representative to you of his "simian" brain evolving?

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 9:22:19 AM)
I am not debating you anymore or your misrepresentations of my words, that does not mean I am done with this thread... I love it when people goad those who do not want to continue a false debate.. I usually think it is rather low, like trying to sucker punch someone.

farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 9:27:00 AM)
"What is not being a "nationalist" have to do with it?" People who strongly believe, ( generally those who strictly interpret the Constitution ) that the Federal Government is inferior to EVERY political entity in the united States, tend to have nothing but contempt for them. George Bush is not WORTHY of respect, because he doesn't act in accordance with his Oath.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 9:34:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I am not debating you anymore or your misrepresentations of my words, that does not mean I am done with this thread... I love it when people goad those who do not want to continue a false debate.. I usually think it is rather low, like trying to sucker punch someone. See there - It was my misunderstanding of "I am done..." Are you trying to provide an example of a straw argument? Your opinion of the "hight" is as hollow as your rationalized arguments. I don't see how fully quoting your words "misrepresents" them. Clarify as you've done with "I am done...". Under what context is saying a leader is a monkey, or has a monkey brain, not insulting to those serving under him? How does respect for the "common man" but no respect for "decision makers" ever provide for an opportunity to respect any "decision maker?" Where are or is the misrepresentation Julia. Saying so, doesn't make it so. Where is the misrepresentation of this position? You support criminals illegally in the country - so does President Bush. Currently that gives you more common ground with him and his administration than me. What is "goading" or "false debate" in that statement? These are just questions providing you the opportunity to explain as you did with; "I am done..".

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 10:12:20 AM)
quote: Where is the misrepresentation of this position? You support criminals illegally in the country - so does President Bush. Currently that gives you more common ground with him and his administration than me. I do not support illegals here, I support being humane to them. I also support imprisoning those who hire them instead of being inhumane once they are here. I also support giving Mexicans that have babies here a choice, renounce their child's American citizenship or put them up for adoption, or perhaps allowing the child to come back as an adult to claim a dual citizenship.. Again, you misrepresented my position.... just because I think we should educate the kids here, and that we should medically treat all people here, and that all people here need to be treated humanely does not mean I want illegals here. I just think that those that hire them should be penalized. Also, I am ignorant of many things, and I do think that people who support the war in Iraq and Bush are ignorant about many things and that is why they support this... that does not mean I think they are ignorant as in illiterate and completely uneducated.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 10:36:29 AM)
I remember hearing a radio commentator say; "Clarity over agreement". Sorry I've forgotten his name to give him credit; but thank you for your clarifications. quote: I do not support illegals here, I support being humane to them. I also support imprisoning those who hire them instead of being inhumane once they are here. I also support giving Mexicans that have babies here a choice, renounce their child's American citizenship or put them up for adoption, or perhaps allowing the child to come back as an adult to claim a dual citizenship.. Again, you misrepresented my position.... just because I think we should educate the kids here, and that we should medically treat all people here, and that all people here need to be treated humanely does not mean I want illegals here. I just think that those that hire them should be penalized. A candidate pushing that platform would get my support. Enforcement should be principally directed to the employers. They are criminals guilty of a much more serious offense than the criminals they hire. Those should "humanely" be deported to their country of origin at the expense of the employer. The progeny of these people present a different story. Due to the laws passed to address freed slaves after the Civil War there is a law on the books that would have to be changed to amend the current dilemma faced by enforcement authorities. The children born here are citizens of the US as the law currently is written. My disagreement with the law only directs me to vote for representative that would change it. I would not support ignoring it. I have no problem until then giving all rights as dictated. It would be hypocrisy to push for the enforcement of one law and ignoring another. quote: Also, I am ignorant of many things, and I do think that people who support the war in Iraq and Bush are ignorant about many things and that is why they support this... that does not mean I think they are ignorant as in illiterate and completely uneducated. The implication of ignorance or illiteracy wasn't directed to you. It was specific to the point of my perspective that calling the commander and chief a monkey, insults those serving the man and the position. It had nothing to do with the support or lack of support for the war. I don't support the war. I want it to end and the soldiers returned to this county. That may or may not make this country more secure in the long term, but the current situation in the region has the US soldiers dieing needlessly, for a cause not believe or understood by the local population . As much as I like to rationalize, that position is diametrically in opposition to the rhetoric given by many under the buzzwords; "I don't support the war, but I support the troops." Non support for the reason they are there brings aid and comfort to their enemy and makes the battle one of attrition. The adversaries of our troops don't have to "win" they only need to survive. My, yours, and anyones stated and public desire for their withdraw pragmatically supports the adversary. Regardless of how much I contribute to Easter Baskets, Christmas boxes, or buying the meal/drinks for any uniformed soldier who happens to be in the same restaurant as me; when I look him/her in the eye I can't represent that I support them. But that's my opinion only given for clarity regarding how I define "support" and not for agreement.

farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 10:44:24 AM)
It's ALWAYS been a war of attrition. That's why everyone with a clue told Bush not to do it. Iraq CANNOT BE WON. Period. The naive attitude that all the different factions would ever get together in some sort of Hippy-Dippy-Iraq-Nationalism is Just Plain Stupid. Stupid. Like when Cheney said it would be 6 months, and we'd be greeted with flowers.

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 11:04:42 AM)
quote: As much as I like to rationalize, that position is diametrically in opposition to the rhetoric given by many under the buzzwords; "I don't support the war, but I support the troops." Non support for the reason they are there brings aid and comfort to their enemy and makes the battle one of attrition. The adversaries of our troops don't have to "win" they only need to survive. My, yours, and anyones stated and public desire for their withdraw pragmatically supports the adversary. Regardless of how much I contribute to Easter Baskets, Christmas boxes, or buying the meal/drinks for any uniformed soldier who happens to be in the same restaurant as me; when I look him/her in the eye I can't represent that I support them. But that's my opinion only given for clarity regarding how I define "support" and not for agreement. Goodbye democracy, hello empire. I could not disagree more stridently with your view. But if I were to believe in your false paradigm of not supporting the kids we sent to Iraq, well I guess I do not support them. If I have to choose a side of a false dichotomy, I choose the moral side.. I believe that if we blindly follow along with leaders that do not give a shit about us and misuse our troops that we might as well say that the Germans were right to support Hitler and concentration camps, and death squads... sorry, I do not buy into this. But you know, I believe we are an aggressive nation now in violation of human rights, international law, and that is all due to the lies fed to us via the Bush Administration. If you want to think that people like me are aiding the enemy, again, Iraqis never were my enemy... so what can I say? I do not have an enemy.. Bush had an enemy that was blocking his access to oil, the Iraqi people never were an enemy of mine.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 11:36:59 AM)
quote: Goodbye democracy, hello empire. I could not disagree more stridently with your view. But if I were to believe in your false paradigm of not supporting the kids we sent to Iraq, well I guess I do not support them. If I have to choose a side of a false dichotomy, I choose the moral side.. I believe that if we blindly follow along with leaders that do not give a shit about us and misuse our troops that we might as well say that the Germans were right to support Hitler and concentration camps, and death squads... sorry, I do not buy into this. Please flesh out the "empire" reference as it relates to the issue it was given in response - support of the troops. There is no requirement of agreement to remain in the US. There isn't any reason to subscribe to the position or the logic involved with reaching that conclusion. It doesn't require an "Empire" to replace our current Republic to reach that conclusion. (We don't live in a democracy.) You "disagree" but would agree if you concurred with the logic? What part of the logic is incorrect in your mind? I thought I was clear in how I define "support" and why supporting surrender, others may call it withdraw, the reality is it has the same result; is in direct opposition to any personal sentiment or action I take on behalf of the individual soldiers. It points to a position totally in opposition of "blindly" following along with any leaders. Even the so called "peace movement" is misnamed. Would there be "peace" after withdraw? Was there peace in the region before the attack? It would be better named for what it is, a "USA soldier withdraw movement". The pragmatic fact that the many religious factions in the area will resume killing each other should be obvious whether you base it upon historical or current reference. There is about as little chance of "peace" as there is for success as currently orchestrated. A "Withdraw Movement" would get my full support. What action taken by me or anyone else who supports such a movement serves to support the troops? I support bringing them home. Until they get here, my position is in support of their adversaries. Damn - the Nazi reference rears its ugly head... The reality regarding Germany was that the German people were taken to task and held responsible for the actions of their elected leader. Until recently their country was divided by the victors as punishment for that activity. Could there be a bigger consequence short of dissolving the country in its entirety? However, it is a disservice to all concerned to compare the suffering of those in concentration camps and those serving as soldiers or civilian support of concentration camps to the soldiers and their support staff of civilians serving in Iraq.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.320313E-02